Reducing the Ecological Impact of Field Research

Abstract

Researchers and students at biological field stations, especially in remote areas, are subject to leaving "footprints," as we conduct research, work, and live in sensitive ecosystems. These footprints include travel, personal trash and waste, and field equipment (e.g. flagging, tree markers, plot markers, trail markers, monitoring devices, etc.). In this commentary, we argue that the field of primatology's commitment to minimum impact research should be more explicitly and visibly integrated into our ethical protocols with regard to field research and instruction in sensitive environments. We review current ethical codes and potential solutions to reducing our "researcher footprints" while conducting fieldwork. Using Costa Rica as an example, we address how sustainable fieldwork differs among varying cultural contexts and argue that researchers should be made responsible and accountable for how our presence, research, and teaching might impact the environment. We conclude by recommending a set of guidelines to be added to ethical protocols regarding research design, station policies, and the conduct of research and teaching in the field.

The what and where of primate field research may be failing primate conservation

“…, , Long‐term field sites may attract more consistent funding by integrating field schools, tourism, and other large group visits to the site. This traffic can have negative long‐term effects that may not be fully understood until they are too severe to easily correct …”

“…Field primatologists and anthropologists have researched and reviewed ethical protocols since the early 2000s , , , , , Ethical protocols involve a nested set of priorities that integrate the primate species themselves, the local human communities that live in or near primate habitats, education/outreach, maintaining primate ecosystems, and adherence to standards and guidelines required by the scientific community.…”

“…These advantages, however, may bring with them a tradeoff of such spatially and taxonomically biased (clustered) research, that the broader picture of primates, their flexibility, and threats to conservation are neglected. While the importance of field stations is recognized, very little systematic study of field station activities, data management strategies, impacts on ecosystems, impacts on local communities, and impacts on primate conservation has been published to date …”

Biological Anthropology in 2014: Beyond the Traditional

“…The document attends to the responsibilities that primatologists have toward their study animals, from the need for noninvasive sampling to stewardship and conservation principles. The majority of the best practices relate to the indirect consequences of fieldwork, from the need to respect the ecosystem surrounding primate field sites to responsibilities toward local people affected by field study, an issue elsewhere documented by Michelle Bezanson and colleagues (). The code explicitly notes the obligations of field researchers to the training and development of the next generation of fieldworkers and discusses these responsibilities in connection with trainees from both their own institutions and from local communities.…”

Contemporary Biological Anthropology in 2013: Integrative, Connected, and Relevant

“…In a thoughtful commentary on the ecological impact of primatology field sites, Michelle Bezanson and colleagues (Bezanson et al. ) argue that researchers should be made responsible for how our studies and teaching activities might impact the sensitive environments in which we work. They review current ethical codes and suggest potential solutions to reducing our “researcher footprints.” They also recommend a useful set of guidelines that can be added to ethical protocols regarding research design, station policies, and the conduct of research and teaching in the field.…”